I beg leave to return my sincere thanks to the community, for the
flattering reception with which this undertaking has been honoured:--A
more convincing proof of that approbation which every Author most
ardently desires seldom occurs, and still more seldom is expressed in
so short a period as between the dates of the first appearance of the
book and the present preface (March 1808 and May 1809.)
It had been my intention, from the moment I thought of tracing the
habits of the residents of our Metropolis, to give a history of
them from the earliest ages to the close of the last century: those
early ages should certainly have been noticed first; but the length
of time required for collecting materials, and the heavy expences
attending printing, made it imperiously necessary that I should offer
to the publick the least difficult portion of my labours, in order to
ascertain whether I might proceed in safety with the remainder. The
result has surpassed my hopes, and roused me to redoubled exertion in
preparing for the press a volume including Anecdotes of Manners and
Customs from the Roman Invasion to 1700, in which will be found most of
the _apparent omissions_ discoverable in this; but I shall ever reserve
a right to myself of saying nothing on a subject of which I have an
imperfect knowledge, through impediments not always to be explained
without a charge of prolixity. This circumstance, and the impossibility
of knowing how the work would be received, compelled me to give a
retrospective view, at the commencement of some chapters, that should
contribute to render them satisfactory, provided the early portion
never appeared. The readers of the Quarto edition of the History of
the Eighteenth Century will therefore have the goodness to excuse the
retrospective sketches in it; and those of the present will perceive
the sketches alluded to are omitted, in order to confine each event to
its proper æra in the work when completed.
It will be observed that I address myself in the above sentence solely
to the liberal reader for information and amusement, and by no means
to the invisible censors of the age, who kindly and charitably supply
the place of Inquisitors without receiving their appointment either
from the Church, the State, or the Publick. _A person_ who honours
this publication with his notice in the Eclectic Review remarks, "_We_
should have thought the progress of learning, and the novelties in the
trade of books, during the last century, well intitled to some regard;
and, as Mr. M. has 'been indebted to his worthy friend Mr. Nichols for
the inspection of his matchless collection of periodical publications,
from which great part of his materials have been selected,' we wonder
not a little how the very institution of periodical publications
could escape his notice." The history of literature did not escape my
recollection as connected with that of the manners of the Metropolis;
but _you_, Gentlemen Reviewers, _being literary men_, ought to have
been aware that the very worthy friend you have mentioned had nearly
printed his _Literary Anecdotes of the same century_, which would have
appeared at the moment my Anecdotes were published, had not one general
conflagration destroyed the whole of the impression, and a considerable
number of my own books, and compelled the benevolent sufferer to
recommence his labours. "Perhaps," continue the Reviewers, "Mr. M. did
not know that the voracity of the publick for scandal demanded _four_
editions, comprising 19,000 copies of the Town and Country Magazine,
on its first appearance." I did know the prevailing voracity for
scandal, and that it was _partly_ supplied by _Reviews_. I do not mean
by any particular work so termed, but by individual articles in many
publications of that description.
Knowing the mischievous consequences to authors, of perversion,
misquotation, and misrepresentation, before the _nature_ of Reviews
was fully understood, the enlightened and excellent Dr. Blair, whose
Sermons do his head and heart so much honour, wrote thus to Mr. Bruce,
the celebrated Abyssinian Traveller: "I do not get the Monthly Review,
and never saw that article in it which has been so injurious to you.
Indeed, I seldom see any Reviews, unless what is called The Analytical
one, which a friend of mine takes, and commonly sends to me; and that
Review appears abundantly favourable to you. But I entirely agree
with Dr. Douglas, that the Reviews are beneath your notice. They are
always guided by the interest of some booksellers; and it is not on
their opinions that the reputation of books and authors will depend.
I am so much of this mind, that though I lately published a volume of
Sermons, I never gave myself the smallest trouble to enquire what the
several Reviewers said of it, or whether they took any notice of it at
all[viii:A]."
It is well known that Dr. Blair had established a reputation which
it was impossible to undermine by secret attacks: hence he naturally
held those who aimed them at others in sovereign contempt. There are
authors, however, who are endeavouring by every laudable exertion in
their power to establish a similar reputation; and would frequently
accomplish it, did not the secret envious Reviewer annihilate their
hopes by exciting terrors in their minds, and by this means destroy all
their vigour, substituting hesitation for energy, and trepidation for
modest confidence in their abilities. Worthy and enviable pursuit, to
wound the feelings of a man we never saw, and rob him not only of fame,
but of that remuneration which the risk of his property in some degree
demands from the publick he endeavours to please!
When an author so far forgets his moral obligations as to publish to
the world sentiments or narratives dangerous to the beautiful order
and simplicity of social life, it becomes the province of a Reviewer
to expose his intentions, and lash him into a sense of his duty;
nor should arrogance and presumptuous folly escape the reprehension
of a _gentleman_ from the same source: but, when a work appears
which demonstrates great labour and diligence in the compilation or
invention, and contains nothing offensive to honour and morality, envy
and malice, and the restless spirit termed _ill-nature_, should really
be subdued in the breast of the Censor, so far as to permit him not to
_expose himself_, and the Review _his individual article_ disgraces.
Besides, both the writer and publisher should reflect, that when _they_
have almost forgotten the article which leaves a deep and a malignant
sting, the party suffering from it lingers in hopeless melancholy; and
in more than one instance even life is said to have been wasted in the
decay produced by a malicious Review.
I should here apologize to the reader for having omitted the portrait
of an incompetent and splenetic Reviewer in the first edition of this
work; but, as it is never too late to amend, and I cannot violate my
own sense of the injustice of giving information in a new edition
withheld in the first, by noticing so common a character, I shall here
proceed to shew him in his true colours, as part of the grand aggregate
I have attempted to describe; merely observing, as a further excuse, in
the words of the Critical Review on these Anecdotes: I am "more pleased
with faithful delineations of general nature, than with the account of
any anomalous productions." Unfortunately for the majority of authors,
and most fortunately for the Reviewer, it too often happens that
second editions of works are not called for; through this circumstance
_Reviews_ of _Reviewers_ are rarely to be met with, and pamphlets
refuting their strictures seldom answer any purpose, owing to their
confined sale. Happily for myself, an opportunity offers which must
have full effect, as the reader of these pages will judge for himself
on their merits, and between the assertions of certain Reviewers, and
what I have to offer in opposition to them.
These self-important _unknown_ persons will find me combating on the
side of injured authors, not only on my own account, but on that of
other individuals severely and unjustly condemned. I certainly despise
them with Dr. Blair; that I do not fear them in my literary pursuits,
and have no cause for so doing, my own words, and the approbation of
the publick, sufficiently demonstrate. I shall be highly gratified
if the following investigation leads one man to judge for himself
hereafter, when he finds Reviews of a similar description connected
with others of liberality and moderation.
We may venture to attribute the introduction of Modern Reviews to
Edward Cave eventually; for, although the Gentleman's Magazine never
assumed that exclusive character, it certainly suggested the hint
of issuing _monthly_ anonymous strictures on new publications[x:A].
All have since professed to commence their career with good humour,
talents, liberality, candour, justice, mercy, and, in short, with the
exercise of every virtue. Had they _all_ strictly adhered to their
professions, Literature would indeed have flourished under the moderate
corrections of Criticism, which is necessary to raise a perfect stock
for the great demand of England; but, instead of those tempered
reproofs, we are often surprised by floods or torrents of censure,
which beat to the earth, and completely destroy, every thing within
their scope. It is the authors of those torrents that I combat: the
impartial and candid Reviewer I honour and admire, in proportion to the
dangers and difficulties of his office.
_The Critical Review for May 1808_--versus "_Anecdotes of the Manners
and Customs of London_." The writer of this article says: "The
following sketch of the contents of this performance will convince
the reader that he may expect much information and amusement in the
perusal." This is extremely well for a preliminary assertion; and yet
we shall find him contradicting it almost from page 1 to 15, where
the Review terminates. The contents are then given, and the Reviewer
continues: "Such is the bill of fare which Mr. M. has prepared: in
which, perhaps, the generality will find many _agreeable dishes_ and
_savoury ingredients_. It is, however, rather a _confused medley_,
than a well assorted or _nicely selected_ entertainment." Here we have
a simile warm from the Crown and Anchor or London Tavern. "Mr. M. has
very industriously perused the public papers, periodical works, &c.
of the last century; and from these he has _culled as much matter_
as, with his _own head and tail_ pieces of remark, explanation, and
_connection_, compose an ample quarto of 490 pages."--"In _traversing_
the pages of this _bulky volume_, we have sometimes been instructed,
and often amused; but on the whole we have experienced sensations of
tediousness and languor, which the author will perhaps impute to our
_squeamishness of appetite_ or apathy of temperament; but which _we_
are more willing to ascribe to the prolixity of the work. When the
reader has taken the trouble _to go through the book_, _we_ shall leave
him to determine whether _the critic_ be insensible, or the author
occasionally dull." This sneering _critic_ (for he at length appears in
the singular case, speaking grammatically) affects to be unwilling to
accuse me of practising the art of book-making, and of inserting every
piece of information which came in my way relative to the manners of
London; but really "_we_ would willingly have dispensed with many of
his details, in which there is nothing either to edify or amuse."
The single critic, or congregated critics, which the reader pleases,
next introduces the following quotation: "Then, says Mr. Malcolm,
(meaning before the invasion of Cæsar) the hardy native stood erect
in the full dignity and grace of nature, perfect from the hands of
the Creator, and tinted with those pure colours which vary with the
internal feelings. Cæsar, doubtless, found the males muscular and full
of energy, the females graceful in their forms, and both wild and
unrestrained in his estimation of manners; though probably they were
such as we now admire in the Savage, sincerity unpolished and kindness
roughly demonstrated."
I shall make no comments on this passage, which the reader of the
Review is requested by the _critic_ to take as a "specimen of that
_affected_, _stiff_, and _verbose style_ in which Mr. M. _sometimes_
thinks proper to indulge, and on which the critic or critics would
fail in _their_ duty to the publick if _they_ did not fix the seal of
_their_ utter reprobation."--"Perspicuity and ease are among those
constituent principles of good writing, which we should be unwilling
to sacrifice for any of the _starched refinements_ and _elaborate
perplexities_ of modern composition."--"When Mr. M. _tells us_ that
Cæsar found the Aborigines of Britain 'tinted with those pure colours
which vary with the internal feelings,' he seems to have forgotten that
Cæsar himself _tells us_ (B. G. lib. v.) that he found these 'hardy
natives' _bedizened_ with a coat of paint. And _we leave_ our modern
fine ladies to inform Mr. M. whether this artificial discoloration were
likely to _serve as a mirror_ for the varying emotions of the breast."
It may be presumed that he who undertakes to criticise the language
of another should himself be perfect in the arrangement of his ideas,
and of words to express them, and capable of composing similies that
shall bear some reference to the subject illustrated. Whether the
author of the Review in question is qualified for the employment he
has undertaken, will appear in the elegant extracts which follow:
"agreeable dishes," "savoury ingredients," "confused medley," "nicely
selected," "culled as much matter," "his own head and tail pieces,"
"traversing the pages," "bulky volume," "squeamishness of appetite,"
"to go through the book," "affected, stiff," "starched refinements,"
"elaborate perplexities," "bedizened," and "_discoloration_ were likely
to serve as a _mirror_." Surely, if he asserts my style to be affected,
stiff, and starched, I may venture to pronounce his extremely vulgar,
incorrect, and confused.
I had not forgotten that Cæsar found the natives of England stained
with the juices of plants, and partially covered with coloured earths;
still I maintain that Nature had perfected her work, and given the
fluids that due circulation, improved by exercise and temperance, which
renders the complexion florid and beautiful. Extraneous matter at times
defaced her operations; but luxury, disease, and enervation, had not
dried the channels of the blood of the Aborigines, as it has those of
the fine lady I am referred to, whose _discoloration_ is to serve as a
_mirror_ to show my own folly.
"In p. 4. Mr. M. _tells us_ what we suppose he discovered _after many
nights of sleepless meditation_, that, 'There are in every human circle
persons whose patriotism may be lulled; [the words between _lulled_
and _and_, "such may be taught by invaders to execrate their chiefs
or governors" are shamefully omitted by the Reviewer as well as the
beginning of the first sentence] and glittering ornaments of dress,
and indolence, soon produce unfavourable comparison between the former
and a naked limb, and the exertions of what is termed savage and the
more refined conceptions of quiet life.' _Without staying_ to make
any remarks on the phraseology or the structure of this sentence, we
shall proceed to shew Mr. M. as a collector of curious anecdotes and
amusing details, in which he appears to much more advantage than as a
philosopher or a rhetorician."
Is it possible that an author can feel himself injured by such absurd
and ridiculous spleen as those four lines and an half produced in the
breast of this miserable Reviewer?
Contemptible and futile as my information is considered by the writer,
he has deigned to compress nearly the whole matter of my Anecdotes of
Charity for his own purposes; and, although he denies me any share
of _his charity_, he is delighted with the instances of it _I have
introduced to his notice_ of that of others. For once he agrees with
me in opinion as to the general improvement of manners; and occupies
from the 3d to the 9th page in contradicting himself in almost all the
positions he has endeavoured to establish as to my incompetency for the
present undertaking.
"Mr. M's 4th chapter is intituled 'Eccentricity proved to be sometimes
injurious, though often inoffensive.' We could willingly have spared
Mr. Malcolm the necessity of exhibiting any proofs on this occasion;
most of the Anecdotes _which he has scraped_ together are destitute of
interest." The writer has been much my friend in this instance, though
certainly without intending it; for he could not have more effectually
convinced the publick of his incapability. Can he suppose it possible
that, in describing the Manners of the Metropolis, the eccentricities
of its inhabitants should be omitted? It is as impossible as that any
person should agree with him in all his absurdities. As to exciting of
interest, the very nature of eccentricity is such, that pity alone must
predominate in the breast of the considerate reader. The sneer that my
specimens of eccentricity will make the Anecdotes "a favourite _of the_
Circulating Libraries," came from the same hand that could write "_a
bushel_ of coals" instead of _a chaldron_ of coals allowed by James
Austin to boil his pudding fourteen days.
The _loyal_ reader shall comment for himself on the following extract
from this admirable Review: "In 1736, a laudable attempt was made to
suppress the excessive use of Gin; and the resentment of the populace
became so very turbulent, that they even presumed to exclaim in the
streets, 'No Gin, no King.' _Whatever respect we may have for the
exclamation, 'No Bishop, no King,' we do not think_ that _either
monarchy or any other government needs_ the _support_ of this,
pernicious distillation." This is what the Reviewer 'tells us,' and
_I_ suppose the discovery was made "after many nights of sleepless
meditation;" indeed the same degree of intense thought seems to have
produced another sapient piece of philosophy or rhetoric, which is
offered to our consideration in p. 11 of the Review. "When a bull
_gives permission_ to a greater brute than himself to bait him to death
with dogs, we will allow that something like a sanction _is given_ to
the sport." Surely these specimens of deep cogitation are almost equal
to my "_novel_ observation that 'partnerships too frequently produce
dissention and a struggle for individual power';" and the Reviewer's
own words, "Mr. M. might have _added_ to the spirit and interest of
his work by _omitting_ such superfluous details." These superfluous
details, good reader, relate to the disputes between Messrs. Harris
and Colman in 1768, which, having excited great interest amongst those
who frequented the Theatre, could not, and ought not to be omitted
to gratify an _invisible individual_, who is perhaps too much of a
Philosopher to be pleased with Dramatic Entertainments.
The spleen of the Reviewer, having increased by indulgence, attains its
_acmè_ of virulence at the close of the article: "In his 12th Chapter
Mr. M. professes to exhibit a Sketch of the present State of Society
in London; in which we do not meet with much _sagacity of remark_,
or _novelty of information_. Take an instance of his _common-place
details_: 'The reader must recollect, that when a family is without
visitors, it is governed by greater regularity. Many Merchants and rich
Tradesmen pass much of their leisure time at Coffee-houses; and dinners
are commonly given at those places'."
Now, what but blind and indiscriminating acrimony could dictate the
above remarks? What sagacity was required to narrate facts as clear as
noon-day? Or, what _novelty of information_ could arise from describing
the domestic occurrences of families in general? The Reviewer dared
not say I have falsified a single article; perhaps he would rather I
had drawn a _fancied picture_ of present customs, that he might have
added a charge of deeper dye against me. The Review of my performance,
which has enabled him to earn a dinner, could not have been written
if _similar common-place details had not appeared during the last
century_. Good Sir, because _you know_ how we _all live at present_,
are we not to inform those who succeed us how _we have lived_? Taking
the _conclusion_ of sentences as a specimen of the _whole_, is peculiar
to a certain description of Reviewers. Now, by referring to the page
whence the extract is taken, it will be found I had been describing
a family as entertaining their visitors, and naturally concluded by
saying, "when alone, it was governed with greater regularity." For once
we have an attempt at wit, which originates from my having asserted
that the dissipation common _in high life_, and late hours, rendered
eating of _breakfast_ a "_languid operation_."--"We do not believe
that there is, _in general_, so much _languor_ in _this_ operation
of eating, as Mr. M. seems to suppose. But, perhaps, Mr. M. will
think that we judge of the morning appetite of others by our own;
and that we Reviewers have appetites like wolves, and are ready to
_devour mountains of toast_, when they come in our way."--_Mountains
of toast_--admirable metaphor! Surely this cannot be called affected,
stiff, starched, verbose, or elevated language; it is familiar enough,
and will be understood perfectly by the cook or house-maid, when the
article which contains it reaches the Kitchen as waste paper.
"The author ends his _smooth-papered volume_ (_a fault_ I must
transfer to the paper-maker, as I have not had it hot-pressed) with
the following sentence: 'Such are the follies of many; but, thanks to
Heaven! there are numbers of our nobility and gentry who live and act
for the general benefit of mankind. And now, _Vale Londinium!_'--We
will add, _Vale_ Mr. M. We have been indebted to you for some
information and amusement; but should have been more gratified with
the perusal of your work, if you had exhibited more judgment in the
selection of the materials, and had not swelled the bulk by a number of
futile, irrelevant, and incongruous details."
The readers of the first edition of this work, amounting perhaps
to some thousands, have completely and decidedly contradicted the
objections brought by the Reviewer in _general_ terms, and supported by
cavils upon four or six sentences selected from 490 pages. The readers
of the present are offered all those cavils for their consideration,
and will _judge for themselves_ of their justice.
* * * * *
With due allowance for a small degree of asperity, for which the
writer can have no good excuse, the Anti-Jacobin Review of December
last contains some argumentative strictures on the arrangement of this
work, as it appeared in the first edition. When a book is offered to
the world, it cannot be expected that every fact in it, and the method,
should meet the approbation of all descriptions of persons; as taste
and opinions are acknowledged to be as various as the features of the
face. That the publick at large have not disapproved of the progressive
chronological manner adopted, I have the most positive evidence by
the rapid sale of the work; and this I shall retain. However, as
objections have been raised by individuals who act as Public Censors,
I have adopted their suggestions in part, and given the Anecdotes a
more connected form, by removing the breaks between each. But, while
I submit to their decision in the above instance, I beg leave to deny
that _any_ of the materials are too trivial for insertion. I was to
give the habits and manners of the Londoners as I found them. If their
conduct was even infantile in some cases, the fault lay with them, not
with me; if part of their conduct resembles that of all the rest of
the world, it is still a part of their conduct, and requires notice as
much as their peculiarities; and it is mere wanton contradiction to
assert the contrary.
The Reviewer next discovers, that periodical publications are not the
best authorities for ascertaining the manners of the times. This I
utterly deny; and I challenge the Reviewer to point out the cases where
falsehood and inaccuracy are discoverable, in the use I have made of
them. In truth, they are almost the only vehicles by which we obtain
any thing like a correct account of the foibles of the day--nay, any
account at all. What does he say to the Spectator, the Tatler, the
World, the Rambler, the Guardian, the Observator, the Female Tatler?
Were they not periodical publications? Do they abound in "_shameful
lies_" (the gross words of the Reviewer)? or are they not considered
as faithful sketches of those customs which escape the notice of the
Historian?
Every Newspaper may contain misrepresentations and falsehoods; but
those are generally confined to politics and artifices of trade:
when any indifferent circumstance is to be related, there is no
inducement to _wilful_ falsehood. Besides, our ingenuous Reviewer
must have allowed me to have had sufficient discernment to reject
articles of that description.--Were I to act with the same candour
towards him as he has evinced towards "Newspapers, Intelligencers, and
Magazines" (observe, _Reviews_ are omitted) in his rejection of them as
authorities, I should charge him with declaring a deliberate falsehood
in informing his readers that my excellent friend Mr. Nichols had lost
his matchless collection of periodical publications in the late burning
of his warehouse and printing-office. A statement of this nature need
not rest upon "_we believe_:" London is extensive, but surely within
the compass of a Reviewer's walk, who dogmatically substitutes _we
believe_ for the simple question at Mr. Nichols's door, "Have you lost
your collection?"
I shall now follow this candid gentleman's example--he damns in the
Theatrical term the whole of my book, by endeavouring to mislead
the publick into a belief that it contains not a word of truth; and
then a high-sounding apology in these words: "That Mr. M. would
_intentionally_ pervert a single fact, or make one statement that he
_believed_ to be erroneous, we certainly have not the most distant
idea of intimating; he possesses too high a sense of honour, too great
a feeling of manly integrity, even to permit the supposition." Pray,
good Sir, who would willingly consider me rather as a fool than as a
liar, apply your own words to yourself; and let me add, I am convinced
you _believed_ Mr. Nichols's collection to have been consumed by fire,
though it certainly was not.
Further let me repeat your words, "Thus have I done, and _I challenge_
contradiction:--mine are the _best authorities_."--Yes, they are the
best authorities; such as the Journals of the House of Commons, the
Gentleman's Magazine, official publications of Charities, and various
institutions, under the signatures of their Secretaries, Reports
of Coroners on Inquests, the Statements of G. A. Wachsel, Sir John
Fielding's official reports, Mr. Howard's letters, Acts of Parliament,
Dr. Hawes's information to the Author, Advertisements from different
Speculators, the official statements of the Society for Reformation
of Manners, Report of the Committee of Magistrates 1725, Letter from
Secretary of State 1728, Proclamations by the King and the Lord Mayor,
original Letters of Richard Smith 1732, the Police Act, Evidence before
the Committee of the House of Commons 1750, Address from Justice
Fielding 1759, Narrative relating to the Cock-lane Ghost, Evidence of
Physicians relating to Mad-houses 1762, Examinations before Committee
of Commons respecting Robberies 1770, Sir J. Fielding's Address
to Grand Jury 1773, official statement of Society for suppressing
Vice; Quacks' own advertisements; Addison, from the Lover; London
Gazette, ceremonial for receiving George I.; Royal Proclamation, 1721,
confirming the existence of scandalous Clubs, Mackay's Journey through
England 1724, Switterda's Advertisements, Act for suppressing Private
Balls, Report of Committee of Common Council 1761, Charge by Sir J.
Fielding respecting Profane Swearing 1763, original letters between
the Bishop of Bristol and his Parishioners 1768, Grosley's Tour to
London, Advertisements by C. Weedon, Esq. Life of Sacheverell, Henley's
Advertisements, presentment of the Grand Jury relating to him 1728,
Lady E. Hamilton's advertisements, Lord Viscount Vane's advertisement,
original advertisements of Lotteries and Benefit Societies, Queen
Anne's communication to the Lord Mayor respecting Riots 1709, Abstract
of Wild's indictment 1725, official parish letter of Christ-church
Surrey 1757, Minutes of Coroners Inquest 1763, Wilkes's letter 1768,
Trial of Donald M'Lane, King's Proclamation 1768, that of Harley,
Mayor, same period, Trial of J. Grainger, &c. 1768, Petition of W.
Allen 1768, Presentment of Grand Jury 1701, that of Middlesex 1703;
London Gazette, reformation of the Stage; the Presentment of Middlesex
Grand Jury 1723, Advertisements of Figg and others, masters of
defence, Notice from Wilks, &c. and Cibber's answer 1733, Notice from
the Proprietor of Vauxhall-gardens, proposal from same 1738, Life of
Handel, original letter from Mrs. Clive, Statements by Mr. Garrick and
Mr. Beard, Letters of Messrs. Harris and Colman, Macklin's narrative,
Plan of the Regatta 1775, Foote's letter to the Lord Chamberlain,
Advertisements of Clothing lost, Peruke-makers' petition 1763, Sir
William Davenant, original docquet to Mr. Cole for globe lamps, Act for
improving London 1760, Notice from Commissioners for paving,--AND,
LASTLY, PERIODICAL PUBLICATIONS.
My words in the Introduction are: "It gives me pleasure to acknowledge
I have been indebted to my worthy friend Mr. Nichols for the inspection
of his matchless collection of periodical publications, _from which
great part of my materials_ have been selected." Whether they were the
sole sources of my Anecdotes let the above list of authorities testify,
which the reader may verify by turning over the following pages. If the
Reviewer _has read_ this work, I charge him on his conscience to say
why he asserts my information depends wholly upon lying newspapers, &c.
Where, _alas!_ has the "full spirit of moral honesty" evaporated which
he so calmly professes?
Two sentences more, and I have done with the Anti-Jacobin. I am treated
with the utmost superciliousness for attempting to prove that many male
and female figures are to be found in London equal to the celebrated
statues of the Venus de Medicis and the Apollo Belvidere, which were
alluded to by the words _Grecian Apollos_ and _Venuses_.--What, am I
to be told that my powers of discrimination "are far _above par_,"
because I assert the British human form is equal to the conceptions
of the antient Grecians? This "Grey-beard," as he calls himself, must
have studied the Arts in a Mercantile way indeed, or he would have
pronounced my powers were _below par_ in saying they were only _equal_,
as, upon a moment's consideration, I am convinced there are hundreds
of persons in London whose forms in general, and the swells of their
muscles, as far surpass the statues in question, excellent as they
may be, as the works of God ever did and ever must exceed those of
man. Indeed, the best Artists invariably acknowledge with humility and
regret how very inferior their works are to the common productions of
Nature. Then how extremely ridiculous are these words of the Reviewer:
"That the Metropolis can furnish many beautiful figures both male and
female, from the _millions_ of its inhabitants, we readily allow;
but that perfection of form and _character_ which _characterises_ an
Apollo and a Venus, has _but few_, very _few resemblances_." I am
almost tempted to say the latter part of this paragraph is impious:
The most complicated, wonderful, and beautiful specimen of the powers
of the _Creator_, exceeded by the works of the _created_; nay, so far
exceeded as to leave but few even of resemblances!!! Has the Reviewer
read that indefatigable and accurate author Keysler? Hear what he
says of the Venus de Medicis, after paying it the just tribute due to
superior excellence: "The head is by most Connoisseurs considered as
too small in proportion to the rest of the body, particularly the hips;
some censure the nose as too large; and possibly the furrow along the
vertebræ of the back is something too deep, especially as the object
represents a soft plump female; and both the bend of the arms and
inclination of the body jointly conspire to lessen the depth of this
furrow, if not totally to obliterate it. The fingers are remarkably
long, and all, except the little finger of the left hand, destitute of
joints; but this should not affect the reputation of the Artist, as it
is sufficiently evident, that the _hands_ had not received his last
touches." It has often been asserted that the English Jacobin cordially
hates his own countrymen, and endeavours to exalt the perfections
of their enemies: the above fact seems to prove decidedly that an
_Anti-Jacobin_ treats an author with contempt, because he wished to say
the truth of the Reviewer's countrymen. If the reverse was the case,
and the British form was less perfect, I ought to have escaped censure
merely for my _amor patriæ_.
It was to deprecate such criticism as the preceding, which I expected,
through the experience of others, that I prescribed an Antidote in the
Preface of the first edition.
And now I shall leave these two wise Reviewers "_to chew the cud
in their own way_," according to the elegant expression of the
Anti-Jacobin.
The Eclectic Review, in noticing this work, has confined itself to
such observations as were highly proper, supposing the volume intended
to form a _complete_ history of the century. I have already explained
the reasons why I offered it to the publick as it appeared, and shall
not therefore repeat them; but I cannot avoid adding, I feel myself
indebted for the offered suggestions, though they were anticipated.
When gentlemanly reproof is tempered with praise, he must be an
arrogant and presumptuous writer indeed who feels offended at the
recital of his real or supposed errors. I shall give some commendatory
extracts, and the Reviewer will permit me to refute one of his
suppositions.
"We certainly approve Mr. M's choice of a subject; and highly should
we have congratulated ourselves if collectors of equal diligence had
performed the same task for the 17th and many preceding centuries
which he has undertaken for the last."--"Mr. M. with equal modesty
and prudence, intitles his volume _Anecdotes_."--"It presents some
of the principal features of the times, and will afford amusement
and knowledge to the present generation, and still more to future
generations, who cannot by recollection compare the portrait with the
original."--"Whoever desires to form a just estimate of the manners of
the English in the 18th century will derive great assistance from Mr.
M's collections."
After what has been said, I am sorry to be obliged to censure any part
of this Review of my Anecdotes. Speaking of my prints of Dress, the
Reviewer says, I should have consulted several works which he has
named, particularly Hogarth's labours, or family pictures, and adds:
"We are very much afraid Mr. M's prints on this subject have been
made up _memoriter_." The above sentence must be considered by every
impartial person as perfectly unjustifiable, and insulting to my moral
character. This instance sufficiently proves that I am personally
unknown to the Reviewer, or he would also have known deceit and
baseness form no part of my composition. It now remains for me to give
my authorities for the sketches of dress, which are full as authentic
as any the Reviewer has mentioned; and to his surprize and regret he
will learn that _the very Hogarth he blames me for neglecting is one of
them_.
Dress 1690-1715, is from a print published immediately after the
coronation of William and Mary representing that event, offered to
the world by one of the Heralds at Arms. Dress 1721 is from a wooden
cut in a newspaper exhibiting the young beau of the day. Dress 1735
is three figures grouped from Hogarth's plates. Dress 1738 is the
old maid in Covent-garden from Hogarth, the position of the figure
altered. Dress 1745 from Hogarth, the attitudes different. Dress
1752, attitudes altered from a large print of Vauxhall-gardens. Dress
1766 from Rooker's view of Covent-garden Church. Dress 1773 from a
Mezzotinto, figures altered. Dress 1779 the hint taken from Miss
Burney's Evelina. Dress 1785 from a large Aquatinta of the interior of
the Pantheon, Oxford-street, figures newly grouped. The two last the
_Reviewer knows to be correct_.--In concluding this subject, I cannot
do better than quote the words of the Reviewer of my work in the
European Magazine for June 1808. Speaking of the Anecdotes of Dress, he
could not omit noticing "a Chapter" that "has in a manner fixed these
fleeting meteors of public absurdity, by a series of prints, that at
once serve as embellishments and elucidations of the work."--"These
prints we really wish our readers could see, because they are, in many
instances, extremely curious, and also because, on subjects of this
nature, an artist with a few strokes of his pencil can convey ideas in
a much stronger manner to the mind than an author in pages of laboured
description."
* * * * *
As I have candidly given the reader _all_ that the preceding Reviewers
have said _against me_, he will indulge me in adding a _few words_
from those who _praise me_. Were all Reviews formed on the liberal
plan which distinguishes the article concerning my Anecdotes in the
European Magazine, every author must be gratified with the prospect
of having his work fairly analysed, and receiving explanatory notices
for a future edition, and rejoice that Reviews are published. In
proceeding through the contents of my book this worthy critic has given
explanations of such passages as his knowledge of London enabled him to
illustrate, which I have inserted in the form of notes in their proper
places in the present edition; and in this pursuit he has, to his great
credit, never once indulged in captious exceptions against particular
sentences, or spoken of every thing omitted and nothing inserted. The
conclusion is extremely grateful to my feelings: "When we consider the
labour which Mr. M. must have undergone in collecting such a variety
of materials from such a number of volumes, pamphlets, and papers,
as he must have perused (some of which are no longer accessible but
to the curious) we are of opinion that he deserves great praise for
his industry. As a body of information respecting the morals, the
manners, the foibles, and follies of our ancestors, we think this work
very useful; as a book of reference, still more so. As an amusement,
therefore, to the idle, and an assistant to the industrious readers, we
unequivocally recommend it to the publick."
It may, perhaps, be said this praise is venal; on the contrary, I most
solemnly declare I know neither my bitter Censors nor my Panegyrists.
As some other Reviews have praised the work, I shall refer the reader
to the Gentleman's Magazine, the Annual Review, &c.